World's Biggest Comspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True

My point was that (e.g.) CNN writers/reporters aren't writing intentional government propaganda. There aren't CIA dudes embedded in the New York Times falsely reporting international events or whatever.

Intentional deception isn't really the problem. The problem is essentially powerful people being pleased and displeased with certain things and thus affecting the way the world is portrayed to the family sitting on the couch watching TV. This is how consent is manufactured. Shareholders and advertisers aren't gonna be too keen on worker's rights stuff or a huge campaign to hike the minimum wage, for instance. That would be take money out of the pockets of shareholders and advertisers. And so that's why you don't see that sorta stuff on corporate news (aside from the occasional incidental blurb).

Anyway, the distinction is crucial.

  On 11/29/2013 at 9:23 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 6:05 AM, goDel said:

Lol

 

Hypocrite.

i would call you a hypocrite for completely doing a 180 with not a moment of self effacing or reflection on you were wrong to defend Obama's programs on the NSA and Edward Snowden, but I suspect you are still an Obama apologist, so technically it probably wouldn't be hypocritical.

 

LOL

so you asked limpy to respond to you a couple of times, but cant be arsed to point him to the post you want him to respond to? and now you think you can defend yourself by going into your memory to find some example of where you think i made a 180? sick!

grow some balls man.

  On 11/29/2013 at 5:08 PM, chenGOD said:

Actually Eugene I called you on not reading the book before your admission. It's deceitful to pretend you understand the complexity of his argument without reading the book. Go blow it out your ass. I feel sorry for your students honestly. GoDel. Sorry didn't watch the clip. In this case then I'll have to disagree with Chomsky. The Wall Street Journal has some terrible reporting for example. Economist is not bad. Financial times is mediocre. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

It's OK. But Chomsky has more authority. :D

Okay here's a good example of "manufacturing consent."

While checking out Black Friday nightmares, I stumbled upon a widespread article from last year called "10 Worst Black Friday Moments."

Here is an except from the front of the article:

This year could be even worse for the giant retailer, as thousands of employees are planning to strike on Black Friday in an effort to end what union-backed workers call retaliation against employees who speak out for better pay, fair schedules and affordable health care.

With thousands of workers expected to participate, Wal-Mart stores around the country could be left shorthanded as they contend with the mobs of shoppers expected on Black Friday.

Here are 10 other incidents that have cast a shadow over Black Friday.

(Then the first thing on the list is a Target petition/boycott that affected Target's profits on Black Friday)

So in this article it is presumed that everyone knows that corporations like Walmart are good, Black Friday is good, and pesky workers are mucking things up. In the rhetoric of American political discourse: these greedy, entitled workers are biting the hand of the job creators.

Now, taking things back to readings of history filtered through a "particular ideology," me and Noam Chomsky and all the other Marxists and anarchists would likely view this as 'pro-business' propaganda. Not that the person writing the article was necessarily intending to deceive, but regardless it implicitly promotes an ideology that favors the bourgeoisie at the cost of the proletariat (which I am against).

Yeah just read through the first 15 or so pages of the article you posted. Gatekeeping theory is all well and good, and it surely applies to the first point of the propaganda model. In fact it actually strengthens the argument regarding ownership of media, and ties in with sourcing, because those are means of gatekeeping. But does it negate the propaganda model? No.

The students you TA are the ones I'm referring to, and I feel sorry as hell for them. I sincerely hope I'm not as much as a prick to the students I TA.

and luke - i posted in the TPP thread, just resurrect that one.

  On 11/29/2013 at 10:58 PM, LimpyLoo said:

My point was that (e.g.) CNN writers/reporters aren't writing intentional government propaganda. There aren't CIA dudes embedded in the New York Times falsely reporting international events or whatever.

 

Intentional deception isn't really the problem. The problem is essentially powerful people being pleased and displeased with certain things and thus affecting the way the world is portrayed to the family sitting on the couch watching TV. This is how consent is manufactured. Shareholders and advertisers aren't gonna be too keen on worker's rights stuff or a huge campaign to hike the minimum wage, for instance. That would be take money out of the pockets of shareholders and advertisers. And so that's why you don't see that sorta stuff on corporate news (aside from the occasional incidental blurb).

 

 

Anyway, the distinction is crucial.

fuck's sake this is killing me. it doesn't matter if they aren't writing propaganda themselves, because the system allows for the government to gradually filter what it doesn't want to be published. and obviously government doesn't do it for no real reason but because it wants to propagate specific information, here's the fucking intent. you're stuck on a minor detail of the model but essentially what's important is that the government affects the flow of information, hence the millions of examples of how press output aligns to government position.

to luke, lack of coercion doesn't mean that government doesn't work via available tools to affect the output. coercion is just one tool. the chomsky model outlines others.

  Quote

BTW, if you won't read 40 pages, why did you expect other people to read 200+? That paper you linked was interesting btw, and it's actually from the university I work at, but... you think a 200 page article is a good response, huh? I specifically made the point that you should be able to condense that knowledge down for us, since you've been studying it for years, yeah? But instead you drop a book in someone's lap and expect them to read it in the middle of a conversation about how you didn't read the book you're critiquing.

 

what 200 pages are you talking about? i linked to 40 page article and specifically asked chen to look at the first 5 pages or the single table on the 5th page.

  Quote

Yeah just read through the first 15 or so pages of the article you posted. Gatekeeping theory is all well and good, and it surely applies to the first point of the propaganda model. In fact it actually strengthens the argument regarding ownership of media, and ties in with sourcing, because those are means of gatekeeping. But does it negate the propaganda model? No.

 

well if that's what you infer from the article than you're getting it completely wrong, what i wanted to show is that the field of gatekeepng is huge and chomsky's theory relates only to one of its sub fields - "institutional environment". and while i already said that obviously it doesn't contradict it, it should open your eyes to all other factors (possibly intervening and interacting) that chomsky simply doesn't even acknowledge and holds that institutional factors (market-govnmt axis) explain news output are the most important ones (if not the only ones). it's simply a primitive notion in the face of that field.

Nobody sits down and writes propaganda to manufacture consent. That's all I was saying. You seemed to suggest that they were and that that was the point of the Propaganda Model.

  On 11/30/2013 at 12:08 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Nobody sits down and writes propaganda to manufacture consent. That's all I was saying. You seemed to suggest that they were and that that was the point of the Propaganda Model.

i never, ever said it in the whole thread.

  On 11/30/2013 at 12:14 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/30/2013 at 12:08 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Nobody sits down and writes propaganda to manufacture consent. That's all I was saying. You seemed to suggest that they were and that that was the point of the Propaganda Model.

i never, ever said it in the whole thread.

 

you were harping on the words

"INTENTIONAL" and "MANUFACTURE"

don't fucking pretend otherwise, dude

yes the government intentionally manufactures consent via available tools, but how the fuck does it mean that it tells the journalists what to write ? filtering is a tool, suing a writer for libel is a tool, banning some reporter from attending press conferences is a tool and so on.

for 10 hours you clearly demonstrated that you didn't understand what you were talking about

you were demonstrating a clear misunderstanding of the thing you were allegedly debunking

i hate to say it

but for a sociologist grad student or whatever your intellectual honest in stuff like this is pretty suspect

you've demonstrated that you just don't understand what Chomsky is saying

and then claiming it's "high school marxism"

and that I only read Chomsky because I don't know any better

never once discrediting a single point Chomsky has ever made

fucking lol

dude you've been little more than an ad hominem machine

you haven't discredited a word out of Chomsky's mouth and you know it

you have some grudge against him

like i said

if he said "2 + 2 = 4" you'd just say that he's not a actual mathematician

and that people are only taking his word for it because he pretends to be a mathematician

in order, eugene said:

  Quote

 

that one wiki article on gatekeeping is a good start on debunking chomsky but it just doesn't seem that you were receptive.

  Quote

 

im not picking a particular angle because there are simply countless of ways to begin debunking his stuff, not because i don't see how.

  Quote

 

i don't know what's considered debunking but this article presents a short history of older theories of gatekeeping

  Quote

 

there's an implicit undertone in chomskys book that they're evil by default

  Quote

 

lol, of course not, why would i read it ?

@chen: I'll bump that TPP thread when more leaks or domestic news comes in. Everything in the papers today is about S. Korea trying to get in on the agreement.

  Quote

for 10 hours you clearly demonstrated that you didn't understand what you were talking about

 

you were demonstrating a clear misunderstanding of the thing you were allegedly debunking

 

i hate to say it

 

but for a sociologist grad student or whatever your intellectual honest in stuff like this is pretty suspect

 

you've demonstrated that you just don't understand what Chomsky is saying

 

and then claiming it's "high school marxism"

 

and that I only read Chomsky because I don't know any better

 

never once discrediting a single point Chomsky has ever made

 

fucking lol

 

 

so now you realized that you were misreading me the whole time while projecting your own understanding and decided to summarize the whole argument in a bout of idiocy ?. chomsky ignored a huge chunk of essential factors in his model, which i simply showed in one table, if you don't see how it's a proper rebuttal i don't think we have anything to talk about anymore. it's exactly the type of thing a high schooler enlightened by marxism would do, try to exaplin everything with a primitive materialistic theory.

  On 11/30/2013 at 12:27 AM, luke viia said:

in order, eugene said:

 

  Quote

 

that one wiki article on gatekeeping is a good start on debunking chomsky but it just doesn't seem that you were receptive.

 

  Quote

 

im not picking a particular angle because there are simply countless of ways to begin debunking his stuff, not because i don't see how.

 

  Quote

 

i don't know what's considered debunking but this article presents a short history of older theories of gatekeeping

 

 

 

  Quote

 

there's an implicit undertone in chomskys book that they're evil by default

  Quote

 

lol, of course not, why would i read it ?

 

 

 

 

@chen: I'll bump that TPP thread when more leaks or domestic news comes in. Everything in the papers today is about S. Korea trying to get in on the agreement.

you don't realize how pathetic you are ? i mean wtf are you trying to show exaclty, that sometimes i word the same ideas differently ? yes, gatekeeping can be considred as debunking but not in a straightforward way. yes there is an undertone that corporation are bad by deafult in because of the role that they play in propaganda.

nah, I'm continuing to make the point that you've been extremely dishonest in this conversation and used your own credentials to try to avoid explaining yourself. good times.

ok, lets restart it. what do you need explaining ?

i think i already showed that i have no problem admitting my mistakes where there in that thread where you portrayed correlation as a proof of something.

you first called Chomsky a conspiracy theorist

and then the best you could at debunking him

was to say that one of his theories isn't as thorough as it should be

  On 11/30/2013 at 12:39 AM, eugene said:

ok, lets restart it. what do you need explaining ?

i think i already showed that i have no problem admitting my mistakes where there in that thread where you portrayed correlation as a proof of something.

oh yeah, the thread where you called me a dummy that needed to take science 101, then very assuredly you marched around saying the statistics were so obvious you didn't even have to do them, then a few days later you ate your own words and saw that it was statistically significant, despite your pompous posturing? that was a good one. i didn't portray any correlation as "proof," and btw i even went to great detail telling you how i take the word proof seriously as most times i see it is in a mathematical context.

it truly is a joy conversing with you eugene.

  On 11/30/2013 at 12:40 AM, LimpyLoo said:

you first called Chomsky a conspiracy theorist

 

and then the best you could at debunking him

 

was to say that one of his theories isn't as thorough as it should be

thorough ? lol, he ignores an enormous chunk of factors that are nothing short of essential.

nvrmnd

yeah there seems to be a trend with Eugene implying that people simply aren't as educated as him

  On 11/30/2013 at 12:42 AM, luke viia said:

 

  On 11/30/2013 at 12:39 AM, eugene said:

ok, lets restart it. what do you need explaining ?

i think i already showed that i have no problem admitting my mistakes where there in that thread where you portrayed correlation as a proof of something.

 

oh yeah, the thread where you called me a dummy that needed to take science 101, then very assuredly you marched around saying the statistics were so obvious you didn't even have to do them, then a few days later you ate your own words and saw that it was statistically significant, despite your pompous posturing? that was a good one. i didn't portray any correlation as "proof," and btw i even went to great detail telling you how i take the word proof seriously as most times i see it is in a mathematical context.

 

it truly is a joy conversing with you eugene.

 

what the fuck is the matter with you ? i'm asking you in a straightforward manner what do you need explaining on this topic but instead you dwell on some irrelevant bullshit. are you hungry for internet drama or something ?

why would I want the guy who didn't read the book to explain the theories to me?

fucking brilliant, 5 posts ago you say that i'm being dishonest and don't explain myself properly and when i propose to explain myself you simply say that my explanation are invalid by default.